- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 06:25:11 -0800
- To: Alex Prut <mail@alexprut.com>
- Cc: "schema. org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 14:25:44 UTC
We wanted to leave the flexibility to evolve the schemas incrementally without breaking "promises" expressed with RDFS's range/domain, and without adding lots of artificial supertypes to group different types within a common type. Dan On 22 Nov 2016 06:12, "Alex Prut" <mail@alexprut.com> wrote: > Hello all, > I'm looking at the schema.org raw ontology implementation and > documentation, but I can’t find a reason why the ontology was implemented > using the schema:domainIncludes and schema:rangeIncludes properties, > instead of the standard RDFs rdfs:domain and rdfs:range? > Thanks, > Alexandru Pruteanu (M.Sc. in Computer Science at University of Udine) > mail@alexprut.com > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 14:25:44 UTC